I read Dreyfus as useful critique of early symbolic approaches. Taken literally he was wrong.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Nick_Haflinger
Exactly what I said: *symbolic* AI. My point was that he used precisely Philosophy, ideas of the past, to criticize the cognitivist approach
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @metasprech @Nick_Haflinger
At the same time, he was unable to understand the computational nature of minds, because he was stuck with Heidegger.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @metasprech
The Turing computational nature of the universe as well as of the mind is a metaphysical presumption :)
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Nick_Haflinger @metasprech
It could also be hypercomputational, but the likely computational class is an empirical question.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @metasprech
Do you know of any parallel comp algorithm, that is not reducible to an equivalent serial one?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Nick_Haflinger @metasprech
Do you understand the Church Turing thesis and computational equivalence classes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Nick_Haflinger @metasprech
Then I don't understand your question
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @metasprech
so then suppose I don't understend computational equiv classes, what would have been your answer?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Do you think Twitter is the right place to try to explain it? Or were you just trying to examine me?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @metasprech
Examine, oh no, beware! I was just trying to discuss in 140 signs. Hopeless. But we can continue via mail, if you like.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.